From the Editor

From Parameters, Spring 2002, pp. 2-4.

In This Issue . . .

Colin Gray examines the character of asymmetric threats and cautions
that traditional attempts to define such threats have generally been unproductive.
As a consequence, he observes, "A problem with efforts to define an asymmetric
threat is that they imply strongly that the universe of threats divides
neatly into the symmetric and the asymmetric." Such attempts he adroitly
counters are "nonsensical" at best. The author provides eight basic characteristics
of asymmetry. He then applies each in the context of terrorism to determine
how the United States should react tactically, operationally, and strategically.
He cautions American military planners not to become overly focused on
asymmetry, thereby ignoring other legitimate threats.

Michael Carlino suggests that as a result of Operation Desert Storm
the US military has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary
to accept heavy casualties to obtain victory. More specifically, the author
believes we have translated this increased desire for "casualty avoidance"
into a mantra inviting an increase in noncombatant losses. How far should
military planners and commanders go to resolve the dichotomy between force
protection and noncombatant immunity? Carlino asserts that a combatant's
right to life is forfeited when he engages with the enemy. Both have the
moral right to kill their foe. However, it is when one considers a noncombatant's
right to "immunity" that the relationship between force protection and
noncombatant safety becomes problematic. The author draws on the works
of Michael Walzer and others to conclude that military and political leaders
must abandon their "zero-casualty mentality" and de-emphasize force protection
if it means increased risk to noncombatants.

Geoffrey S. Corn and Jan E. Aldykiewicz introduce the first of three
articles related to law and war in the 21st century with their treatise
suggesting that violators of international law be tried in US military
courts. The authors draw on the precedent of the Second World War and Nuremberg
to explain the evolution of a doctrine of individual criminal responsibility
for violations of the laws of war. They explain that in the past this doctrine
was limited to acts committed during state-on-state conflicts; only recently
has it been applied to civil wars and internal armed conflicts. The authors
review a series of precedent-setting cases under the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court to determine that recent developments in the
law of war make the use of US courts-martial another potential venue for
prosecuting individuals who commit war crimes during internal conflicts.

Richard Butler identifies disconnects between current US Army doctrine
and the decisions by international tribunals conducting prosecutions under
the legal precedent of "unlawful attack." This precedent focuses on military
commanders conducting operations that affect the surrounding civilian population.
The author postulates that although there have been no prosecutions of
US commanders under this doctrine, it is clear that there are increasing
expectations by the international community that military commanders be
held to a higher standard when making decisions related to ground operations
and target selection.

Our final article related to "The Law and War in the 21stCentury"
is Chris Quillen's disturbing look at the role the Department of Defense
can legally play in countering domestic terrorism. Quillen believes that
the fundamental limitations placed on the military by the Posse Comitatus
Act of 1878 are being eroded by presidential and congressional desires
"to do something" in times of danger. The author uses the threat of nuclear
terror to highlight that the involvement of the military in traditional
law enforcement roles is not only violating the intent of the act, it is
weakening the very principles essential to the maintenance of our American
constitutional system. Quillen suggests that instead of changing the current
Posse Comitatus law, the nation would be better served by the expansion
of structures already in existence within specific national agencies. Such
an expansion would require these agencies (FBI and DOE) to agree that a
threat is of such magnitude that the Department of Defense should be brought
in. The author concludes that this expansion of existing authority, once
vetted by the courts, would eliminate current legal restrictions upon DOD
and still address genuine concerns about the Defense Department's role
in domestic affairs.

Michael J. Hillyard examines how the corporate world and government
organize to address specific missions, products, or services provided.
Hillyard points out that understanding the distinctions between such institutions
is critical to determining the optimal structure for homeland security.
How should we organize our many institutions and national capabilities
to protect and secure the American people and our way of life? What is
the best method for institutionalizing the security of the homeland? The
answers to these questions and many others provide the reader with insights
into the difficulties associated with organizing such a multifaceted institution.
Hillyard proposes a structure organized around the federal bureaucracy,
reinforced by a national network of hubs, and integrated across the whole
of America. The author warns that we should act now and not be dissuaded
by the old myth that it takes decades for institutions within the federal
structure to evolve.

Paul Murdock analyzes two of the most misunderstood principles of war--mass
and economy of force--to provide the reader with an insightful and illustrative
article outlining the capabilities required for success on the network-centric
battlefield. The author draws upon the works and deeds of such great commanders
and strategists as Liddell Hart, Sherman, MacArthur, and others, to arrive
at the conclusion, "Decisions pertaining to the strength of forces are
not about frugality; they are about balance, effectiveness, and calculated
risk."

P. H. Liotta and Cindy Jebb warn that in the aftermath of 11 September
2001 the world should not lose sight of events in the Balkans, specifically,
Macedonia. The fact that the Balkans no longer constitute a primary foreign
policy challenge does not mean that the international community can ignore
Southeast Europe. The authors argue that Macedonia's future is important
to the entire European security architecture. Following a detailed and
instructive history of Macedonia and its people, the authors offer several
observations designed to successfully guide Macedonia into the 21st century.
Europeanization, to include membership in the European Union, is key if
Macedonia is to survive. Liotta and Jebb conclude that the fate of Macedonia
is in the hands of "external" forces; they can not do it alone.

Book Reviews present a rich and diverse array of offerings, including
Russell F. Weigley's review of Jay Winik's April 1865: The Month That
Saved America; Richard G. Trefry's look at the latest work of John
S. D. Eisenhower and Joanne Thompson Eisenhower, Yanks: The Epic Story
of the American Army in World War I; and Williamson Murray's insightful
review of After Clausewitz, German Military Thinkers Before the Great
War, by Antulio J. Echevarria. Other reviews of note are William P.
Kiehl's review of Empire and Revolution: The United States and the Third
World since 1945, Peter L. Hahn and Mary Ann Heiss, editors; Douglas
P. Yurovich's analysis of Gian B. Gentile's How Effective Is Strategic
Bombing? Lessons Learned from World War II to Kosovo; and William J.
Gregor's views on Christopher Sanders' America's Overseas Garrisons:
The Leasehold Empire. This is an eclectic collection of reviews, prepared
by experts with the intent to inform and advise anyone with a particular
interest.

Distribution Surveys . . .

We appreciate the assistance of our readers in the successful execution
of two recent distribution surveys. The first entailed a massive mailout
of cards last fall, and the second was an email survey of current Department
of Distance Education students this past January. Your response to the
surveys permitted us to update our database and meet recurring postal requirements,
and will result in savings in printing and postage costs in the tens-of-thousands
of dollars. As with any undertaking of this magnitude we experienced a
few minor glitches along the way, and we apologize for any inconvenience
this may have caused. Finally, I wish to express the sincere appreciation
of the entire Parameters staff for the many compliments you so generously
volunteered.

Taps . . .

It is again my sad duty to say farewell to a fellow soldier and editor.
Colonel Alfred J. Mock, USA Ret., passed away on 7 January 2002. Al was
editor of Parameters from November 1973 until May 1976. He entered
the Army during World War II and later served in both the Korean conflict
and Vietnam. Following his retirement from the US Army War College in 1976,
he taught journalism and public relations at a local university. To Kathleen,
his loving wife of 42 years, the entire Mock family, and to all of Al's
many friends, you have our deepest sympathy. "Wherever Al walked, life
improved." -- RHT